Hi!! I was wondering if anyone could please help me out with this task:
You are to research three different historical perspectives of Leon Trotsky of differing viewpoints. To answer this question:
"History is more honest when a negative or positive view is presented. Despite this, we tend to accept the measured view as the "official" perspective."
I don't really understand the question and how to write a whole essay on it and it's freaking me out!! Any help would be appreciated, even if its a historian recommendation or breakdown of the question, anything!!
Thnx so much, I really need to improve my rank in class
Hey diesxel!
Can defs help you out with this one - a very similar question to the one I received in my HSC! The question is one focused on the differing interpretations (obviously), which means that we look to the final dot point of the Trotsky syllabus -
evaluation: for example practical revolutionary, naïve idealist?.
Trotsky is a very controversial figure, with radically different interpretations. In my opinion (and this is what I argued in my essay), these say more about the historians than they do about Trotsky - particularly their views of Communism. Right-wing historians such as Robert Service, who have a more negative view of communism thus have a negative view of Trotsky - presenting him as a naive idealist and a ruthless authoritarian (aka, he stuck too rigidly to a "failing" ideology, even when it was not going to work, or was detrimental to the people), however Left-wing historians such as Isaac Deutscher, who are more sympathetic towards Communism, present a much more positive interpretation of Trotsky - suggesting that he was a practical revolutionary (meaning that he pragmatically applied ideology, rather that just assuming theory would work in all circumstances). It all comes down to Trotsky's ideology - either he was too rigid, or he was pragmatic, and knew when it could/couldn't be applied successfully. Right-wing historians will inherently view Communism as an idealistic ideology, and thus that will shape their interpretation, in the same way that many left-wing/socialist historians who view Communism as a practical ideology (or even an inevitable one, if they accept the marxist conception of history), will have their interpretation shaped as well. What is interesting, and the reason why I think that these interpretations are more of a reflection on the historians and their ideology as opposed to Trotsky is that they place emphasis on different aspects of Trotsky's legacy in order to assert their views.
For example, lets look at Trotsky's role in the power struggle. Right-wing historians emphasise Trotsky's personal failures - his arrogance, naivety and rude personality - to suggest why he failed. He was so arrogant in assuming that he was the natural successor to Lenin, naive to Stalin's actions, and rude to party members, alienating everyone. That is why he failed. On the other hand, left-wing historians suggest that rather than looking at Trotsky's failures, what is important is to look at the social changes at the time - war-torn, decline in urban proletariat, etc. etc. This society was war-weary, thus Trotsky's ideology of Permanent Revolution, which required international revolution and thus conflict would not have appealed to society as much as Stalin's socialism-in-one-country, which suggested Russia could sustain communism on their own, without engaging in conflict with other nations. Thus, no matter what Trotsky's was personally like, doesn't change the fact that his ideology just didn't suit the present social conditions - it's about society, not the individual. That is why he failed.
See what I mean? They are both selective in the evidence they present - history is interpretation. I think what the second part of the question is suggesting, is that many perceive truth to come from the "middle ground" view. The "measured" view is the view that (supposedly) takes everything into account (if you do history extension - you know how dumb that sentiment is, but for Modern just go with it
So you have these two radical "extremes" - Trotsky was evil, or Trotsky was a communist hero. The truth supposedly lies in the middle - Trotsky was a complex figure, who made many controversial decisions that greatly shaped Russian society at the time. His significance doesn't lie in whether he was morally "good" or "bad", but in the radical impact he had on the Russian populous, and the consolidation of Bolshevik power. By very nature, the fact that there is a debate asserts that he was a highly significant figure.
Soooo the way that I would tackle this essay, would be to structure it according to these three key issues: His role as Commissar for Foreign Affairs, his role as Commissar for War, and the Power Struggle with Stalin. Within each paragraph, I would emphasise how and why historians have arrived at such radical views, but assert that it is their allegiance to their own right or left wing ideology that they are asserting, and that you gain a more balanced interpretation of Trotsky's significance through an analysis of both
Hope this helps!!
Susie